Nuclear weapons; sometimes I think there are more than 10 or 11 thousand of them

yet every 24 hours the sun emits the equivalent of millions of nuclear weapons of energy to earths surface making a nuclear apocalypse unlikely

This is a way to amplify the killing power of 10 or 11 thousand nuclear
weapons to be near that of 11550000 weapons It multiplies each nuclear weapon 7(B) with 3(N) with 50(C) giving 1050 times more deaths from radiation.

I can hear the yawning, who would use these things anyway

First we note that a variety of melatonin (heptane melatonin) confers 7 times radiation resistance; thus I think a melatonin like molecule as well as an infectious disease that made antibodies to circulating DNA repair cytokine messengers as well as siRNA to things like DNA repair enzymes like topoisomerase could make creatures 7 times more B susceptible to radiation

The Cobalt bomb is a typical nuclear fallout amplifier (link) basically coating a nuclear weapon or detonating it at a pile of material that has a nere five year half life like Co causes a very highly radioactive kind of fallout
Thus just creating a heap of cobalt at a likely strike site creates a higher radiation risk; as would a slow fast missile ship combination where the huge Ore ship full of cobalt was near the target That is more than 3 times fallout with the N

Bone preferentially absorbs heavy metals with up to 98 pt of Uranium only accumulating at bone rather than soft tissue; the microorganisms that are hybrids of osteoblasts are 50 times better at concentrating radioactive heavy metals This concentration effect is coupled with the production of citric acid cycle metabolites to produce heavy metal citrates as well as heavy metal sugars (think Uranium Gluconate or lactate rather than Zinc gluconate) which have much higher bioavailability

Now I hear the potential critics saying, yeah, so how do people meet up with microorganisms that amplify the effect of nuclear weapons before the apocalypse without anyone noticing

The biolistic hurricane as well as the vegetation advantaged mycorhizzia are possibilities as is the use of modified nitrogen fixing bacteria that make nitrocarbohydrates like nitroglycerine to spread rapidly plus gain access to food with fizzing

Is burning the oil fields an option?http://wotraceafg.voila.net/interview.htmIsraeli Minister of Defense (and later PM) Ariel Sharon, in 1982: "Let them understand that we are a wild country, dangerous to our surroundings, not normal, that we might go crazy if one of our children is murdered - just one! That we might go wild and burn all the oil fields in the Middle East!" [ldischler, Apr 22 2012]

this augmentation scheme would become more valuable as the number of nuclear weapons decreases. It is kind of like if you have only one bullet, it is good if you can get it to accurately ricochet among your enemies.

I know this isn't a good idea and mostly off topic, but do
you think it would be constructive to threaten your
children with burning down the house? I mean, just say
"you damn kids! I'm gonna burn down the house!" not
actually do it.

Anyways, this idea is somewhat the adult equivalent.
The apocalypse wouldn't even be fun to watch with this
type of thing. Well well, bean, I think this is one of your
best; all your typical mad elements mixed with a few
dozen brazen hypotheses and a little something we can
all grasp. A real beany quintessence! However, in
simple fear of encouraging similarly garbled and insane
ideas I have to do this. [-]

Loris, *actual* estimates place nuclear war deaths around 1/3 of the population (including fallout deaths) not EVERYONE.

Are we talking about augmenting nuclear weapons with bio/chem weapons? I'm not sure that would work and regardless the goal of nukes isn't actually to kill as many people as possible. If we wanted to do that we would just make very dirty bombs and set them off at ground level.

I'm not entirely convinced, DIYMatt - the 'nuclear warfare' wikipedia article mentions that a single volcanic explosion (Mount Tambora) equivalent to one Gigaton TNT lead to 1916 being 'the year without a summer'. The total nuclear bomb yield being many times this, even a relatively inefficient exchange could lead to a much more severe nuclear winter, which the vast majority of humans would not survive.

Even if what you say were the case, my logic still stands, beanangel would need to find 1049*6/3-4 billion = 2094 billion people to improve his weapons effectiveness to the described level.

This is the basis of Israel's "Samson Option," a doomsday scenario that involves setting cities ablaze, but wouldn't it be much more effective to detonate nukes above all the oil fields of the Middle East, much like Saddam did in Kuwait except on a far grander scale. With the loss of oil, you'd have an instant collapse of the world economy, and with the resulting crop failures, the starvation of billions would result in political instabilities that would amplify all the other negative effects.

Well, the effect of nuking oil fields on oil
production could be overcome, with sufficient
resources, and the resources behind oil
production are enormous. There'd be a
temporary interruption, a spike in prices, huge
investment in increased production elsewhere,
and, eventually, developement of new technology
for getting at the arabian oil again.

Of course, the spike might do so much economic
damage
that this didn't happen, but shutting down crop
production, causing global famine, might
reasonably seem like a safer (hah! "safer") option
to Israeli planners.

Personally, I think the 'Samson Program' is Dr. Strangelove-
style bullshit for the 21st century, because one of the
nations that would suffer the most from it would be Israel.
I'm not saying Israel wouldn't use the nuclear capability
that they officially don't have, because I wholeheartedly
believe that under certain circumstances they would; but
it stands more to reason that their entire arsenal is built
around tactical-scale devices. When your potential target
is a neighboring country, it's unwise to go chucking 20-
megatonners.

So again I ask, what's wrong with good old-fashioned Great
Red Menace-era nuclear holocaust? Isn't catclysmic
destruction on a global scale enough? Why the sudden need
to improve upon it, especially in this kinder, gentler world
of relaxed international relations where nobody would
ever, ever, ever fire off a nuke at our trusted and valuable
allies in everlasting peace?

If Moore's Law were in force, we would now be
enjoying solar-powered nuclear warheads the size of
cigarette
lighters, given away for free in cereal packets, and
capable of causing well over 10^11 deaths.

With the balance of power shifting every few
decades now, I think there is little advantage in
making an enemies property a wasteland for an
extra ____ thousand years. Also removing more
than the heads of state seems over the top.

Looking at the map of the Saudi oil fields, they seem far too spread out for a country of moderate nuclear means to make much of a dent. The attacker would be blowing up a lot of sand and very few wells. Besides, without considerable testing, it isn't clear that you could easily set oil wells alight, as opposed to sealing them off. So the plan of burning cities does look like the better nuclear enhancement. As for Alterother's objection that Israel wouldn't do this because it would be suicide, this misses the point. It's intended as a last resort when all is lost and the revenge minded want to extract payback.

// it isn't clear that you could easily set oil wells alight, as
opposed to sealing them off //

I was wondering about that myself. Considering that the
incinerating heat of a nuclear blast preceeds the
shockwave, it would probably extinguish any well-fires it
touched off within seconds. It would certainly demolish the
extraction equipment, and it might leave a bunch of
gushers.

One of the effects noted during the above-ground
tests in the '50s was a lack of active fires; lots of ashes,
but very little flame.

Cities were burned in WWII by a first pass with conventional explosives that turned buildings into kindling, and then a second pass with incendiaries. The same could be done here, perhaps, with a ground level explosion to break pipes and get oil leaking over a wide area, and then, a few days later, a high altitude explosion to set a fire that might be impossible to put out.

//As for Alterother's objection that Israel wouldn't do this because it would be suicide, this misses the point. It's intended as a last resort when all is lost and the revenge minded want to extract payback.//

Actually I think that Alterother was objecting to the logical flaw in having such a doomsday weapon and then not revealing it. If you've seen the film "Dr Strangelove (or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb)" then that's pretty clear.

The problem, Alterother, is the delivery as well as the explosive power. You really need something that can get through defenses, like missiles.

As for the Samson Option, it appears to be much like Israel's nuclear missiles, it's something that may or may not exist and you take your chances. As for not revealing it, it can be found on Wikipedia.

If the Doomsday device (whatever it is) is not conclusively demonstrated, it has no value as a deterrent. It does, however, retain all it's negative value (costs, maintainance, risk of accidental or malicious activation etc.).

When you can either spend your time and effort on something which will help your situation, or on something which will kill your enemies, but also your allies, any of your surviving people, and also drag regard for the nation permanantly into the sewer - after it has ceased to matter - most heads of state would choose the former. One would hope.

On the face of it, Loris, the SO has no deterrent value, other than the MAD deterrent that nuclear weapons on missiles gets you anyway. But think of people in a small room and one of them has a grenade that he says he will set off if anything happens to him at the hands of his enemy on the other side of the room. If the grenade goes off, everyone will die. Now everyone is very interested in preventing anything from happening. There are no disinterested bystanders anymore.

That is the essence of the doomsday device. The problem,
at least for the grenade holder, is that you now have a
room full of people working out how to kill him before he
can pull the pin. The smart ones will soon realize that they
have a vested interest in cooperating with one another.
THAT is the drawback of a doomsday device: when you you
have the capability to kill everyone, everyone will want to
kill you, and nobody will want to be your friend.

Possession of a doomsday device would not profit Israel in
any way. Israel has powerful friends who would frown on
such a thing, and it desperately needs to keep them.

//But think of people in a small room and one of them has a grenade that he says he will set off if anything happens to him at the hands of his enemy on the other side of the room. If the grenade goes off, everyone will die. Now everyone is very interested in preventing anything from happening. There are no disinterested bystanders anymore.//

In that situation (with the implicit rule that people are not able to simply leave) I'd say that everyone now knows who the real enemy is; who needs to be overpowered when they're not paying attention.

Neither am I. They have nukes; everybody knows they have
them, and that they colluded with South Africa in
development and testing. I'm just saying that the idea of
an Israeli doomsday plan is laughable, not in the least
because it would harm not only themselves but their major
allies--namely the US and Britain--and nobody needs allies
more than Israel does. The only way they could possess
such a plan would be in total secrecy, the folly of which
has already been pointed out, and since it obviously isn't a
secret, it most likely doesn't exist at all.

//Possession of a doomsday device would not profit Israel in any way.//

The stockpile of nuclear tipped missiles IS the doomsday machine, and the arguments that there can't be such a plan to use them seems to hinge on the perception of Israel's government as rational. But is it rational? It has long been Israel's policy to act as if it were irrational. Moshe Dayan said, "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother," and Ariel Sharon said--as I quoted in the link--"Let them understand that we are a wild country, dangerous to our surroundings, not normal, that we might go crazy if one of our children is murdered - just one! That we might go wild and burn all the oil fields in the Middle East!" Now I don't deny that there can be rationality in apparent irrationality, but as Kurt Vonnegut once said, "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be."

::The key aspect of the doomsday device's deterrent factor is that it would go off automatically without human aid and despite human intervention, providing a highly credible threat that would dissuade attackers and avoid the dangerous game of brinkmanship that brought the United States and the Soviet Union closer to nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis.::

Just having a bunch of nukes pointed at other countries doesn't count.

Regarding the quote you mention, the last thing a country wants to do is act like a mad dog. Because mad dogs get destroyed as efficiently as possible. I think we can write it off as politicing.

Quite. As belligerent as Israel often seems/is, there is a
method to their madness not shared by many of their
Middle East counterparts.

Before/if this goes any further, I'd like to point out that my
mildly anti-Israeli stance has nothing whatsoever to do
with Judaeism (sp?) or even religion in general. That
misunderstanding has been made when I've expressed
these views elsewhere, and I don't wish for that
to happen here.

//Just having a bunch of nukes pointed at other countries doesn't count.//

So, Loris, you deride my reference to Wikipedia, then you use it yourself. In fact, the "key aspect" you referred to is Herman Kahn's idea, not to doomsday devices in general. The article opens by saying that such a device is a "usually a weapon, or collection of weapons," and thus sufficient weapons and means to deliver them in such a way as "to take the world down with us," as Martin van Creveld has said, definitely qualifies.

//Before/if this goes any further, I'd like to point out that my mildly anti-Israeli stance has
nothing whatsoever to do with Judaeism (sp?) or even religion in general. That misunderstanding
has been made when I've expressed these views elsewhere, and I don't wish for that to happen
here.//

The history of Israel is linked inextricably to Judaism. Israel is the only Jewish state in the world,
and essentially all of the conflict it faces is a direct result of that fact. You cannot talk about
Israel without talking about Judaism. Saying you're opposed to Israel (or it's foreign policy) but
that has nothing to do with Judaism is self-contradictory, because Israel's very existence is based
on Judaism. Its policy decisions are guided primarily by the fact that it is a Jewish state in a sea
of Arab countries. If Israel were an Arab state, there would be no conflict.

Realize that when you're saying "Israel shouldn't do X", to anyone who identifies Israel as the
Jewish homeland, what you're really saying "The Jews shouldn't do X". You may think there's a
distinction, but that's the result of failing to understand how integral the Jewish identity is to the
existence of Israel. Many, if not most, Jews who don't agree with Israel's foreign policy, or don't
consider themselves particularly religious, nevertheless consider Israel to be their spiritual
homeland, and the government of Israel is the de facto representative government of the Jews
(much as you might not agree with the government of your own country, but it's still your
country). Particularly given that it's been scarcely 70 years since the last attempt (of many) to
wipe the Jews off the face of the Earth, the significance of a "safe" homeland to the Jewish
identity cannot be understated.

If you're wondering why people may have interpreted your anti-Israel stance as anti-Jewish, then
that's probably because, to a lot of people, those two opinions are one and the same. I'm not
trying to accuse you of anti-semitism herein fact, I very much doubt that you harbor any anti-
Jewish sentiment at all, and that you simply misperceive Israel and its government as an entity
separate from the Jewish religion. But I do think you don't truly understand the connection
between Israel and Judaism, because there really is no such separation possible.

Yep, ytk, you have Bibi's propaganda down pat--anyone who criticizes the Likudniks is anti-Israel and anyone who is anti-Israel is anti-Semitic. It's intellectually corrupt, but unfortunately it works.

Okay, [ytk], I definitely respect that. I suppose my clarified
point
is that I have no problem with Judaism in general or any
Jews in specific. My issue is that I feel Israel garners more
sympathy than it deserves based on its history and
alliances, and in reflection, yes, that is a statement about
Judaism (but not necessarily 'against' it). If Israel were any
other country, it would be classified amongst the world's
most belligerent nations. In its short history as a modern
state, it has established an outstanding record of
expansionist behavior and bullying its neighbors. It is the
only nation in the world that enjoys patronage of Western
nuclear powers yet refuses to submit to the same
regulatory standards as those countries impose upon
themselves. The Mossad in
particular is and always has been a loose cannon, operating
virtually without supervision or sanction, carrying out
espionage, sabotage, and assassination on the soil of
friends, enemies, and neutrals alike. These are not the
actions of a nation that is interested in finding its place
within a unified 1st World; these are the actions of a
warmonger.

I understand that, for Jews, Israel _is_ Judaism. However, I
live in a nation that espouses a separation between church
and state as a fundamental tenet of democracy--a nation
that Israel has done everything it can to align itself with.
Seen from my side of the issue, a line must be drawn
somewhere. However, I fully appreciate that the view is
very different from the West Bank of the Jordan, as it must
be from the living rooms of my Jewish neighbors (if I have
any; not many synagogues up here in the mountains).

I think that the most inflammatory interpretation of my
argument is "the Jews _running_ Israel shouldn't do X"
(except that I'm not even saying "shouldn't do," I'm saying
"have done/are doing"). Jewish Americans are free to hold
allegiance to Israel to whatever degree they wish, but in
my eyes they are Americans first and subject to everything
that status entails. They are as free to argue that Israel is
in the right in every aspect of its foreign policy (which
many of them do not) as I am to carry a longsword and call
myself a Heathen (which I do). We're all still Americans.

Call it whatever you want. I'm just telling you the way
things are. To
the majority of Jews, Israel represents more than just
some country in
the Middle Eastit's an integral part of the Jewish
cultural identity, and
a validation of the right of the Jewish stateand
therefore, the Jews
to exist. An attack on Israel is seen as an attack on the
Jews.

But, sure, go ahead and chalk it up to propaganda if you
like. Never
mind the thousands of years of systematic persecution
against a
stateless people, the memory of which still lingers
heavily on the
collective Jewish consciousness. What relevance could
that /possibly/
have to the Jewish perception of Israel?

Only about 75% of Israel is Jewish, ytk, and not all Jews in the world are Zionists, so there's no identity between Israel and Judaism, much as Bibi tries to make it so. The "thousands of years of systematic persecution against a stateless people" takes us full circle back to doomsday machines, as it is the justification for the Samson Option--revenge--at least in the view of some.

That I agree with; it fits into my point. I'm also not about
to deny thousands of
years of Jewish history, though I will dispute the claim
that it is solely a history of persecution. Plenty of Jews
been swingin' swords in that time, my friend.

[Idischler] and I are arguing different points, it would
seem. I don't see anything about Israel's established history
as propagandist, though I do know what he's talking about.
I see it as a case of politically biased interpretation vs.
social history, BiBi being the former, [ytk] mostly
appearing to
lean the other way.

Israel is a Jewish nation, founded by Jews, governed by
Jews, peopled in the majority by Jews, and looked to by
Jews
the world over as the cultural, political, geographical, and
religious heartland of Judaism. This is my argument with
that statement. You might as well be saying that there is
no identity between Vatican City and Catholicism.

Where I take issue is over the difference between Israel's
policy and actions as a nation and those of Judaism as a
worldwide
religion. I would take a similar stand over the Vatican as a
political entity and Catholicism as a worldwide
religion, though to a lesser extent, as I see them as more
closely aligned because the Vatican itself is not as
influential on the world stage strictly in terms defining it
as a nation.

There are many, even in Israel, who disagree. Israel, they say, is a Zionist state, not a Jewish state. As for the analogy with the Vatican, the pope is the head of state and the head of the religion. Can you say that about the PM of Israel?

No, which is why I draw similarities between the two
rather than direct analogy. Perhaps I could have found a
better example, but the premise if my argument, i.e. the
first part of the statement, stands well enough on its own.
I initially considered saying that it would be just as
erroneous to disregard the identity between Japan and the
Japanese, but I didn't want to get tangled up in a furball
over the difference between nationality and religion.

My real central point, after my contention that the Samson
Option is a fairy tale but before whatever it is that we're
into now, is that Israel has a much better reputation than
it really deserves given how belligerent it is and how much
sneaky shit it gets away with, and that said statement
stands totally apart from whatever feelings I may hold
regarding Jews as people and Judaism as a religion. Truth
be told, I don't know many Jews other than my former Krav
Maga instructor, who is a pretty cool guy. It sucked what
was done to them in WWII, obviously. Totally uncalled-for.
Everything that happened before the 20th century I view as
all part of the great historical give 'n' take. Bad stuff has
happened to more or less everyone somewhere along the
line.

//There are many, even in Israel, who disagree. Israel, they say, is a
Zionist state, not a Jewish state.//

Your confusion of ideas in this matter is... profound. What, exactly, do
you think Zionism is, if not the support for a Jewish state in Israel?

[Alterother], I'm not really interested in debating the merits of the state
of Israel or its foreign policy. I just hoped to explain why your remarks
may be interpreted as anti-semitic or anti-religious, even though you may
not intend them to be so. I will say, though, that you seem to
demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of the Jewish identity.
That's not a slight against you in any wayyou simply don't have the
cultural background necessary to understand things from the Jewish
perspective. As you said, you don't know many Jews, and haven't had
much exposure to Judaism, except probably what you've read about in the
news regarding the State of Israel.

//Everything that happened before the 20th century I view as all part of
the great historical give 'n' take. Bad stuff has happened to more or less
everyone somewhere along the line.//

This pretty much demonstrates what I mean. Sure, bad stuff may have
happened to everyone, but throughout history and across numerous
cultures, Jews have often been singled out for mistreatment, simply
because they were effectively a homeless minority virtually anywhere they
went. The Holocaust was not one-off event, but merely the latest in a
series of persecutions that literally goes back to Biblical timesthe
holiday of Passover, which just ended, remembers the freedom of the Jews
from slavery in Egypt. You see, this is not just a string of bad luckthe
omnipresent threat of religious and ethnic persecution is something that is
woven into the very cultural fabric of Judaism. So, when someone
particularly someone who doesn't really have a solid understanding of the
history of Jewish culturemakes a statement denigrating Israel, it is very
easy to interpret that as anti-semitic, because, historically speaking, it
probably is.

And when you say you're "anti-Israel", it's hard not to
interpret that as being anti-Jewish. It's one thing to opine that the
policies of Israel's government are ultimately not in the country's best
interest; it's quite another to say that you don't believe Israel should exist.
If you truly think that, then fine, but don't be surprised when people label
you an anti-semite. There's simply too much cultural and historical
baggage behind that statement to not to draw that conclusion, at least as
most Jews see it.

I doubt that the Jews would have been quite so
persecuted if they were more inclined to
assimilate into the communities in which they
live. That they haven't is testament to something
in their psyche, I'm sure.

When you make a point of being the nail that
sticks up highest then it's a likely bet that
someone will belt you with a hammer every time
they notice you're sticking up.

I'm not suggesting that the Jewish race deserve to
be persecuted... don't hear me wrong on that
one... but insisting on being different will always
attract attention to you, often unwelcome
attention. It happens in every culture, every
nation, every school playground, every day.

If you insist you want to keep fighting that fight
then I'd suggest you save your breath for fighting,
rather than bleating. Keeping quiet will attract
fewer enemies.

//So, Loris, you deride my reference to Wikipedia, then you use it yourself.//

I derided your reference to the Wikipedia "Samson option" page as conclusive proof that something exists, not using Wikipedia. Particularly since said page goes to some lengths to indicate that it isn't necessarily an actual policy.

//In fact, the "key aspect" you referred to is Herman Kahn's idea, not to doomsday devices in general.//

So what you're saying is that the developers of the term - the people who actually defined it - defined it wrong?

Your reading skills, Loris, are deficient, as Wikipedia doesn't claim that Kahn developed or defined the doomsday machine, only that he proposed one type, and not a very good one at that, as Stanley Kubrick showed in Dr. Strangelove. As for the Samson Option, go back and read why I said to look it up on Wikipedia, where I said "it appears to be much like Israel's nuclear missiles, it's something that may or may not exist and you take your chances. As for not revealing it, it can be found on Wikipedia."

No. Nowhere did I say anything of the kind. I have no idea how you reached that conclusion.

//You've run out of logic or any argumentative skill?//

I was thinking that about you.

//Your reading skills, in particular, are deficit, as Wikipedia doesn't claim that Kahn developed or defined the doomsday machine, only that he proposed one type.//

Oh really?

Here are some quotes from the top pages which come up when I google "doomsday device Herman Kahn" (without quotes):

"Herman Kahn's Doomsday Machine
...In response to such a strategy, Kahn (only half jokingly) proposed his "Doomsday Machine," a massive computer connected to a stockpile of hydrogen bombs. When the computer sensed imminent and intolerable danger from a Soviet attack, it would detonate the bombs..."

"Kubrick actually met Kahn personally, and Kahn gave him the idea for the Doomsday Machine, which would immediately destroy the entire planet in the event of a nuclear attack."

<the wikipedia quote I gave earlier>

"Kahn introduced the Doomsday Machine as a rhetorical device to show the limits of John von Neumann's strategy of Mutually assured destruction or MAD."

But we're back to arguing about semantics. The big issue with saying that having a second strike capacity is sufficient to describe a "doomsday device" is that the term effectively becomes synonymous.

// you simply don't have the cultural background necessary
to understand things from the Jewish perspective. As you
said, you don't know many Jews, and haven't had much
exposure to Judaism, except probably what you've read
about in the news regarding the State of Israel. //

Plus what I've read about the history of Israel. I read a lot
of history.

You're right; I don't have the background or perspective. All
I have is an opinion.

I don't believe I said that I'm anti-Israel--I'm not--and if I
did say that, I misspoke, or mistyped or whatever. I won't
repeat what I _did_ mean to say, because I feel I've been
excessively clear on that point, but I wish to add that I do
not feel that Israel shouldn't exist; it should, and I'm glad it
does. I'm glad for Jews everywhere, because it gives them
a spiritual homeland, and because it gives them hope,
something everyone should have. IMO, the existence of
Israel is just and correct. I just sometimes wish the 1st
World, and especially the press, would take a more
objective view on the modern state of Israel and its
actions.